Ron Paul, does he stand a chance? - Page 2

Havelock · 05-29-2007, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leadsalad

Havelock, grow up and maybe read something outside of U.S. spoonfed news.

What makes you think I haven't? Read what al Qaeda spokespeople say. Read up on the history of the movement, and of the region. What policy of the U.S.'s necessitated attacks on our civilians? What policy of the U.K.'s? What policy of Spain's? Those were deliberate acts by deliberate men, and can't be written off as America's fault any more than the blame for the abuse at Abu Ghraib can be laid on the prisoners.

rinthea · 05-29-2007, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Havelock

stuff.

YouTube - Educating dumbfuck America Press Conference

CabbitCabbit · 05-29-2007, 02:12 AM

Middle East: Keep out of the middle eat
America: No
Middle East: Keep out of the middle east
America: No
Middle East: Keep out of the middle east douche
America: no
*Boom*
America:Oh, Now it's on...

BurnemWizfyre · 05-29-2007, 02:23 AM

Is it just me or does havelock appear to be a product of fox news in all its glory? You try to come off as intelligent and know what your talking about, but you always make yourself out to be an idiot.

Dammerung · 05-29-2007, 02:37 AM

I think you've got about a page and a half worth of no and why to the OP question.

BurnemWizfyre · 05-29-2007, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dammerung

I think you've got about a page and a half worth of no and why to the OP question.

The biggest answer as to why no is $$$$ he doesnt have enough.

Dammerung · 05-29-2007, 03:14 AM

No, the biggest answer as to why no is people like Havelock.

Quineloe · 05-29-2007, 03:42 AM

If there could be a press rep from Al Qaida today in here, there sure would.

Woah.

Quineloe · 05-29-2007, 03:44 AM

What's the Voting % of 2004, how many people did not vote?

mek · 05-29-2007, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Havelock

What makes you think I haven't? Read what al Qaeda spokespeople say. Read up on the history of the movement, and of the region. What policy of the U.S.'s necessitated attacks on our civilians? What policy of the U.K.'s? What policy of Spain's? Those were deliberate acts by deliberate men, and can't be written off as America's fault any more than the blame for the abuse at Abu Ghraib can be laid on the prisoners.

Nobody's trying to justify 9/11 and nobody's arguing that Al Qaeda's manifesto is a masterful achievement of pure reason. Saudia Arabia is a whole bucket of worms that the United States won't touch with a ten-foot pole, since they're so completely in bed with them, but it's an aside. To understand how to fight terrorism, you need to understand terrorism. If you dismiss it out of hand as irrational, you might do something stupid like invade the wrong country.

Glaive · 05-29-2007, 07:02 AM

People have a hard time differentiating "cause and effect" and "moral justification."

If I hit you, it is understandable that you might hit me back.

Now, if I hit you because you threated to rape my daughter, most people would certainly say I had the moral high-ground, but that doesn't mean you're still not going to retaliate and take a swing at me.

See what I'm getting at?

Ron Paul and the rest of the people among the Libertarians, GOP, and Democrats that support non-interventionist foreign policy simply recognize that regardless of how right or justified we think we are in a particular action, we can't blindly ignore what the consequenes of that will be.

I thought his press conference with the gentleman from the CIA did a great job of explaining this. Fundamentally, the Middle East has a sociopolitical environment that for us is like trying to use left-handed scissors. It just doesn't fucking work right and we're better off staying the fuck out unless we absolutely have to.

And yes, while some people may think Giuliani "owned him," a lot more people heard what he was saying. His popularity in polls and on the internet, has been rising very rapidly ever since the first debate, and as others have said he seems to be picking up a lot of support amongst the apathetic, disenfranchised people who often don't vote or feel any sort of connection to either party. They don't like the ultra-liberal pseudo-socialists, but don't like the uber-Christians either, which leaves only the flip-flopping, boring centrists (who invariably just try and go after the same group of voters) and Libertarians like Ron Paul.

Maybe he won't win. Maybe he will. If he gets enough support, the GOP could easily recognize that having a Republican-leaning Libertarian would be better than nominating Bush 2.0 and losing the election to the Democrats.

You've also got to factor in that Hillary will quite possibly get the Democratic nomination, and there's a LOT of people who don't like or trust her. She's a very polarizing person, and I think that could work to the Democrats' disadvantage. Obama has the benefit of being a new, fresh face that people don't know shit about. The reactionary right-wingers (OMG he's black and possibly Muslim! Run!) would never vote for him, but a lot of the people will who are sick of what they associate with the GOP and who don't like Hillary. What a lot of people don't realize is that the man is actually pretty hardcore left-winger and supports some policies that are fairly socialistic. That's fine if you're interested in that, but I think some people are looking at him through rose-colored glasses. I'd still rather have him than Hillary, though.

But I think Ron has more of a chance than people think. The more he gets out there in front of the camera and on the Internet, the harder it is to ignore that he's saying something fucking different, and that he has a lot of logic to back shit up.

For the sake of comparison: Ron Paul now has as many YouTube subscribers as every other GOP candidate combined.

He has at least twice as many as Obama, and nearly four times as many as Hillary.

He was neck and neck with Obama around the first debate, so that's quite a change.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Soriak · 05-29-2007, 07:32 AM

The reason he won't win is that political debate in the US hasn't been about actual debate for a long time now. (mind you, this doesn't just happen in the US - but we're not debating elections in other countries)

The attack on Edwards is that he got a $400 haircut. Mind you, he's not the perfect candidate - his time as a trial lawyer should provide ample ammunition. But he's not being hanged for that, he's attacked for living in Beverly Hills.

Common wisdom is that voters want someone they can relate to, an average American. The average American watches 28hrs of TV a week and given that IQ scores are on a bell curve, has an IQ of around 100 and something around a community college education. One could argue that - except for the community college (though we can debate whether his Yale education was earned or simply used for their publicity) - Bush could well be described as an average American. He's not "bad" or even overly stupid, just not what you'd expect from someone leading a country.

While there's nothing wrong with all that, it's not the kind of person you want leading the country. You want someone from the elite. Someone who will not get elected now and maybe ever.

But to find a person who can live up to that, you need actual debate that doesn't consist of a 30 second reply with so much moderation that you don't need anything but soundbites previously prepared by pollsters. Ron Paul gave an actual response to a question and that was his mistake. Had he simply gone with "It's all THEIR fault, and I'll track them down, kill them with my own hands, then pray to Jesus to revive them just so I can kill them again" he'd have been golden. The average voter doesn't know or care that there's no "them" or that this is neither a solution nor a viable strategy - but it sounds right. Keep it simple, stupid.

That's also why you'll never see Obama, Clinton, Gulliani, etc on Bill Maher or any show with actual debate. They might go on the daily show to be hip, where they know they won't be asked hard questions and even if, they're out again in 5mins. 30mins and being on a table with people who often have a pretty good grasp of what's going on? Suicide for any politician.

edit: I'd love to see Obama and Paul winning their respective primaries for a face-off. It might just be about who has the better ideas and not who's going to screw up the country less. Then again, maybe that's also why neither of them will win their primary

Also: Ron Paul on Bill Maher was good, but not a whole lot of conservatives watching that show

Dokomo · 05-29-2007, 07:40 AM

We need someone with a PhD to be President. Woodrow Wilson, our only one, did a pretty good job.

Kiroy · 05-29-2007, 07:56 AM

It would be funny if we completely pulled out of the Middle East, and I'm all for it, but not for the normal reasons.

After a couple years of genocide and chaos which would make Africa look like Disneyland, the lefty's will be screaming that we need to get in there and help save the people. This would be funny.

Let's not even speak of the $8/gallon gas.

If we weren't playing god over there for the past some odd years, the place would either be Darfur x 10, or a Sharia law ruled superpower. That would be funtastic for everyone ya?

I'd especially like to see what Europe looks like 10 years after we completely remove ourselves from the Middle East.

p.s. Soriak - the attack on Edwards wasn't so much is haircut, but the fact that he preaches '2 America's' and then get's a $400 haircut. Hypocrite.

Don't get me wrong though, the attacks are just as stupid as the politicians. Every one of them are hypocrite’s by nature. It's like scolding a monkey for climbing trees.

Eomer · 05-29-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Middle East: Keep out of the middle eat
America: No
Middle East: Keep out of the middle east
America: No
Middle East: Keep out of the middle east douche
America: no
*Boom*
America:Oh, Now it's on...

I dunno why, but I find this hysterical.

05-29-2007, 07:02 AM	#26 (permalink)
Glaive DPS Paladin Lolz Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: texas Posts: 723 -22 Internets	People have a hard time differentiating "cause and effect" and "moral justification." If I hit you, it is understandable that you might hit me back. Now, if I hit you because you threated to rape my daughter, most people would certainly say I had the moral high-ground, but that doesn't mean you're still not going to retaliate and take a swing at me. See what I'm getting at? Ron Paul and the rest of the people among the Libertarians, GOP, and Democrats that support non-interventionist foreign policy simply recognize that regardless of how right or justified we think we are in a particular action, we can't blindly ignore what the consequenes of that will be. I thought his press conference with the gentleman from the CIA did a great job of explaining this. Fundamentally, the Middle East has a sociopolitical environment that for us is like trying to use left-handed scissors. It just doesn't fucking work right and we're better off staying the fuck out unless we absolutely have to. And yes, while some people may think Giuliani "owned him," a lot more people heard what he was saying. His popularity in polls and on the internet, has been rising very rapidly ever since the first debate, and as others have said he seems to be picking up a lot of support amongst the apathetic, disenfranchised people who often don't vote or feel any sort of connection to either party. They don't like the ultra-liberal pseudo-socialists, but don't like the uber-Christians either, which leaves only the flip-flopping, boring centrists (who invariably just try and go after the same group of voters) and Libertarians like Ron Paul. Maybe he won't win. Maybe he will. If he gets enough support, the GOP could easily recognize that having a Republican-leaning Libertarian would be better than nominating Bush 2.0 and losing the election to the Democrats. You've also got to factor in that Hillary will quite possibly get the Democratic nomination, and there's a LOT of people who don't like or trust her. She's a very polarizing person, and I think that could work to the Democrats' disadvantage. Obama has the benefit of being a new, fresh face that people don't know shit about. The reactionary right-wingers (OMG he's black and possibly Muslim! Run!) would never vote for him, but a lot of the people will who are sick of what they associate with the GOP and who don't like Hillary. What a lot of people don't realize is that the man is actually pretty hardcore left-winger and supports some policies that are fairly socialistic. That's fine if you're interested in that, but I think some people are looking at him through rose-colored glasses. I'd still rather have him than Hillary, though. But I think Ron has more of a chance than people think. The more he gets out there in front of the camera and on the Internet, the harder it is to ignore that he's saying something fucking different, and that he has a lot of logic to back shit up. For the sake of comparison: Ron Paul now has as many YouTube subscribers as every other GOP candidate combined. He has at least twice as many as Obama, and nearly four times as many as Hillary. He was neck and neck with Obama around the first debate, so that's quite a change. I'm cautiously optimistic. __________________ Note to MMO Devs: Paladins are not main healers.

05-29-2007, 07:32 AM	#27 (permalink)
Soriak Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 5,835 +54 Internets	The reason he won't win is that political debate in the US hasn't been about actual debate for a long time now. (mind you, this doesn't just happen in the US - but we're not debating elections in other countries) The attack on Edwards is that he got a $400 haircut. Mind you, he's not the perfect candidate - his time as a trial lawyer should provide ample ammunition. But he's not being hanged for that, he's attacked for living in Beverly Hills. Common wisdom is that voters want someone they can relate to, an average American. The average American watches 28hrs of TV a week and given that IQ scores are on a bell curve, has an IQ of around 100 and something around a community college education. One could argue that - except for the community college (though we can debate whether his Yale education was earned or simply used for their publicity) - Bush could well be described as an average American. He's not "bad" or even overly stupid, just not what you'd expect from someone leading a country. While there's nothing wrong with all that, it's not the kind of person you want leading the country. You want someone from the elite. Someone who will not get elected now and maybe ever. But to find a person who can live up to that, you need actual debate that doesn't consist of a 30 second reply with so much moderation that you don't need anything but soundbites previously prepared by pollsters. Ron Paul gave an actual response to a question and that was his mistake. Had he simply gone with "It's all THEIR fault, and I'll track them down, kill them with my own hands, then pray to Jesus to revive them just so I can kill them again" he'd have been golden. The average voter doesn't know or care that there's no "them" or that this is neither a solution nor a viable strategy - but it sounds right. Keep it simple, stupid. That's also why you'll never see Obama, Clinton, Gulliani, etc on Bill Maher or any show with actual debate. They might go on the daily show to be hip, where they know they won't be asked hard questions and even if, they're out again in 5mins. 30mins and being on a table with people who often have a pretty good grasp of what's going on? Suicide for any politician. edit: I'd love to see Obama and Paul winning their respective primaries for a face-off. It might just be about who has the better ideas and not who's going to screw up the country less. Then again, maybe that's also why neither of them will win their primary Also: Ron Paul on Bill Maher was good, but not a whole lot of conservatives watching that show Last edited by Soriak; 05-29-2007 at 07:36 AM..

05-29-2007, 07:56 AM	#29 (permalink)
Kiroy CORP POR! Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,234 -6 Internets	It would be funny if we completely pulled out of the Middle East, and I'm all for it, but not for the normal reasons. After a couple years of genocide and chaos which would make Africa look like Disneyland, the lefty's will be screaming that we need to get in there and help save the people. This would be funny. Let's not even speak of the $8/gallon gas. If we weren't playing god over there for the past some odd years, the place would either be Darfur x 10, or a Sharia law ruled superpower. That would be funtastic for everyone ya? I'd especially like to see what Europe looks like 10 years after we completely remove ourselves from the Middle East. p.s. Soriak - the attack on Edwards wasn't so much is haircut, but the fact that he preaches '2 America's' and then get's a $400 haircut. Hypocrite. Don't get me wrong though, the attacks are just as stupid as the politicians. Every one of them are hypocrite’s by nature. It's like scolding a monkey for climbing trees. __________________ ORALE!!! CHAMACOS!! Last edited by Kiroy; 05-29-2007 at 08:12 AM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

05-29-2007, 02:12 AM	#18 (permalink)
CabbitCabbit Stole Fizzy Lifting Drink Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Columbus Ohio Posts: 1,128	Middle East: Keep out of the middle eat America: No Middle East: Keep out of the middle east America: No Middle East: Keep out of the middle east douche America: no Boom America:Oh, Now it's on...

05-29-2007, 02:23 AM	#19 (permalink)
BurnemWizfyre Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ingleside Texas Posts: 972 -34 Internets	Is it just me or does havelock appear to be a product of fox news in all its glory? You try to come off as intelligent and know what your talking about, but you always make yourself out to be an idiot.

05-29-2007, 02:37 AM	#20 (permalink)
Dammerung Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 113 -5 Internets	I think you've got about a page and a half worth of no and why to the OP question.

05-29-2007, 03:14 AM	#22 (permalink)
Dammerung Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 113 -5 Internets	No, the biggest answer as to why no is people like Havelock.

05-29-2007, 03:42 AM	#23 (permalink)
Quineloe Hard Rock Hallelujah Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,615	If there could be a press rep from Al Qaida today in here, there sure would. Woah.

05-29-2007, 03:44 AM	#24 (permalink)
Quineloe Hard Rock Hallelujah Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,615	What's the Voting % of 2004, how many people did not vote?

05-29-2007, 07:40 AM	#28 (permalink)
Dokomo Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Buffalo Grove, IL Posts: 1,301 -18 Internets	We need someone with a PhD to be President. Woodrow Wilson, our only one, did a pretty good job.